| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200707032132.20731.oliver@neukum.org> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 21:32:20 +0200 From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org> To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> Cc: rjw@...k.pl, benh@...nel.crashing.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, pavel@....cz, nigel@...el.suspend2.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 schrieb Miklos Szeredi: > > And a further question. The freezer is not atomic. What do you do > > if a task not yet frozen calls sys_sync(), but fuse is already frozen? > > What do you do if a task not yet frozen writes to a pipe, on the other > end of which is a task already frozen? The same as you do with a pipe when the reader is not ready. > It doesn't matter. The only thing that should matter during suspend > (not hibernate) is saving the state of devices to ram, and putting the > devices to sleep. Well, but you did remove sys_sync() from the freezer, which is and must be called in the hibernate path. > I'm not sure why this can't be made atomic, but assuming, that it > can't, fuse should still not need to be implicated. If it is, that's > an indication about something wrong in the suspend procedure. Nope, something's wrong in fuse. You must be able to deal with sync until every task is frozen. Regards Oliver - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists